DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Kotowboy on February 22, 2015, 01:33:30 AM
-
Here is an interesting question. Barring a few examples ( Wrath Of Khan, Judgement Day, BTTF 2 for Blob ) - most sequels are nowhere near as good as the first movie.
Why is that ? If it's the same cast and crew and writing team etc . . They're essentially just doing the same thing again.
Why do so many sequels not live up to the first one ?
is it because the 1st script might have been worked on for ages and you get a limited time to write the 2nd ?
Are you essentially trying to recapture lightning in a bottle ?
-
They're essentially just doing the same thing again.
Well, there ya go. For the original movie, everything is fresh. The cast is working together for the first time, and sparks are flying. The writing team is excited for a new project. The second movie won't have quite the same level of novelty, and the energy will be different.
Of course, that's not always the case. I don't think you'll find one explanation that covers all sequels. There are lots of variables.
I also think it's worth mentioning that sometimes the popularity of a sequel has nothing to do with the sequel itself, and everything to do with how attached people are to the original. If the original is held in extremely high regard, the sequel has high expectations to live up to, and that can be difficult if people have a strong attachment to the original. Again, this isn't always the case, but I think it does happen sometimes.
-
I think a major reason, especially these days, is because sequels are often motivated purely by money, and not by having more story to tell. Any movie that does well has to have a sequel now, so you end up with sequels devoid of new ideas, because they just want a movie to appeal to the same audience again. If it worked once, they figure it will work again. Never mind that it's just empty rehash.
Barring sequels that are just crap, I think it's a matter of expectations too. For the first movie, you have no preconceptions, because you don't know what you're getting yet. A sequel has expectations and everyone has a different idea of what direction the sequel should take. I don't think you can win.
Just look at Terminator 2, one of the best sequels of all time. There are still people who don't like it that much, because Arnie is a good guy, and it's not gritty enough. You can't please everyone.
-
I think there are several sequels that you could make a case for being better than the original. Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Fast & Furious 5 or 6, the list goes on.
-
Yeah I also agree that it's not just "a few exceptions".
-
I think there are several sequels that you could make a case for being better than the original. Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Fast & Furious 5 or 6, the list goes on.
I'd even say many of those are considered better by the majority.
-
I think there are several sequels that you could make a case for being better than the original. Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Fast & Furious 5 or 6, the list goes on.
Spot on Jimmy.
I think sequels to bad films are the problem. Great first movies usually lead to a very good second film.
-
Usually when sequels are really good, it's when they are a continuation of the story (Back to the Future, The Godfather, Rocky, etc.), instead of just trying to write another story using the same characters (The Hangover, for example).
-
I think Comedy sequels generally are the worst, because it's usually just the same movie again. If you take movies like Terminator or Matrix, those movies work on their own, but they also introduce these elements and plot points that you could develop and study further in a sequel. With a comedy it's hard to achieve that. So it basically just becomes a "lets get the same gang together, and have more crazy stuff happening!". There's probably a few exceptions like with most things, but I think in general it might be easier to make sequels to action, sci-fi or horror movies (for example), because there's more elements you can explore further.
-
Yep, comedic sequels are almost always not good. Caddyshack and Anchorman are two of the funniest movies ever, and both had terrible sequels.
-
Kev never speak of Caddyshack II in the same sentence as Caddyshack ever again or I'll report you. :lol
-
:lol :lol
-
I'm still flaburgasted that they made Weekend at Bernies part 2
-
I think a major reason, especially these days, is because sequels are often motivated purely by money, and not by having more story to tell. Any movie that does well has to have a sequel now, so you end up with sequels devoid of new ideas, because they just want a movie to appeal to the same audience again. If it worked once, they figure it will work again. Never mind that it's just empty rehash.
We have a winner. Same reason reboots suck, as well as most big blockbuster summertime popcorn movies are crap as well.
-
A great sequel either has to:
- take the same characters (some or all of them) and make a new story, normally one of the same genre/tone/nature as the first, that works just as well, if not better than the first, yet on its own terms. Later stories need to hold as much weight and importance to the characters and the audience as the first, otherwise, they're just a waste of time.
OR
- be written in a way that they're NOT a new story that's been tacked on, but a continuation of a greater narrative that was begun in the first film. (Both/all parts of the story need to simultaneously feel like an at least semi-complete story in and of themselves). I would say in most cases where this is done successfully, there was a larger story planned out from the very beginning.
I personally think both of these are waaaaay harder to achieve than people really consider.
-
I know it got terrible reviews and I would be in the minority, but I enjoyed Dumb and Dumber To. Expectations were obviously sky high, but I thought it complimented the original fine.
-
Sharknado.
A film that should never have even been made let alone have two sequels.
I couldn't last 5 mins of the first film. They think they're trying to be all satirical and meta but it just comes across as trying too hard and failing miserably to
be a cult hit.
-
Sharknado was incredibad, and the movie only got funnier as it went on. If there was any doubt, the sequel was more self aware about its own stupidity, and just as much fun.
But obviously that kind of movie isn't for everyone, especially the humourless. :P
-
Oh so the reason I couldn't watch it wasn't because it was absolute shite - it's because I have no sense of humour ?
Gotcha.
Is your favourite movie Adam Sandler's Jack & Jill ? :)
-
I actually can't stand modern comedy movies. :lol
Obviously the movie was shit, but that's the fun of it, it's entertaining shit! If I want to watch a good movie, I don't watch Sharknado. If I want to watch a fun movie, I don't watch Schindler's List. Every movie has its place.
-
I couldn't get past the terrible CGI :p
-
YOU KIDS THESE DAYS ARE ALL ABOUT THE VISUALS! BUT IT'S ABOUT THE STORY......... ok, no, but it's about learning about sharks and tornadoes and science.
-
I was a bit displeased when Wil Wheaton was in the 2nd one. I'd thought he'd have more sense to stay away.
I know it's just a bit of fun - but he doesn't really need the role or the cool points. He's like the number one geek.
-
Wil Wheaton has zero cool points. He's Wil Wheaton. :lol
And it was a two second cameo at the start of the movie before he was ripped apart by a shark on a plane. It seems like exactly the kind of thing a guy like Wil Wheaton would do, someone who doesn't take themselves too seriously.
-
Yep, comedic sequels are almost always not good. Caddyshack and Anchorman are two of the funniest movies ever, and both had terrible sequels.
:rollin
Caddyshack 2: I was literally banging my head into the movie theater seat in front of me (surprise. It was empty.) All I remember is telling my friends "Can we go now? Do you really think it is suddenly going to get better?"
It wasn't even like Clooney Batman where you cringed for 15 minutes, and then it just turned into the whole movie theater making fun of it ... and it got so bad, it became good. Nothing like Batman shaking his head when he talks or the entire backstory of Mr. Freeze being he fell. But the laughing at it was so good. Caddyshack 2 was a "just kill me" movie.
-
Caddyshack 2 was pretty bad.
Even worse? Grease 2.
Worse yet? And a true contender for worst "real" movie ever made? Weekend at Bernie's 2.
-
I saw Caddyshack 2 first. Plus I was really young when I saw it. Little me remembered liking it. :dunno:
I guess I should see them both now in context.
-
I saw Caddyshack 2 first. Plus I was really young when I saw it. Little me remembered liking it. :dunno:
I guess I should see them both now in context.
No you shouldn't. I can conceive of no circumstance under which anyone SHOULD see Caddyshack 2.
-
I saw Caddyshack 2 first. Plus I was really young when I saw it. Little me remembered liking it. :dunno:
I guess I should see them both now in context.
No you shouldn't. I can conceive of no circumstance under which anyone SHOULD see Caddyshack 2.
Not even as corporal punishment?
-
That would be inflicted on the individual by an outside authority. Doesn't count.
But yes, that would work.
-
Say - what's everyone's favourite Chevy Chase movie ?
-
Say - what's everyone's favourite Chevy Chase movie ?
Fletch
Caddyshack
Seems Like Old Times
And, even though it's not really all that good, I have a soft spot in my heart for Modern Problems.
-
I think there are several sequels that you could make a case for being better than the original. Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Fast & Furious 5 or 6, the list goes on.
Spiderman 2 better than Spiderman?
The Dark Knight better than Batman Begins?
I question weather or not we even saw the same movies.
In the case of the Godfather I would maybe say as good.
But better?
Of all the X-Men movies I would have to say that the first is the best by far, but I haven't seen D.o.F.P. yet.
While I agree with you about Aliens, a lot of people will probably think we're crazy to think so.
I also agree that Last Crusade was the best of the Indiana Jones movies. But Raiders is a close second.
Another example of a series getting better as it goes along: I thought the 3rd and 4th Mission Impossible movies were much better than the first two.
-
You might be the first person I've ever seen say that Dark Knight and Spiderman 2 weren't better than their predecessors.
Seriously. I'm sure people will pop up now saying it because that shit just happens on the internet, but I've never seen anyone who thought those two movies weren't the best of their series far and away. :lol
-
Chevy Chase
When I was young, I liked just about everything he was in. Then I saw Caddyshack 2.
Off the top of my head, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray and Eddie Murphy. Those were the comedy movie kings when I was young.
-
You might be the first person I've ever seen say that Dark Knight and Spiderman 2 weren't better than their predecessors.
Seriously. I'm sure people will pop up now saying it because that shit just happens on the internet, but I've never seen anyone who thought those two movies weren't the best of their series far and away. :lol
Oh there are plenty of people who prefer the first film in both those franchises. I'm not one of them, and the balance is certainly in favour of the second films, but that particular viewpoint is certainly not unique or even rare.
-
Hey I prefer The Dark Knight Rises to The Dark Knight !
But Batman Begins to both of them.
I also prefer Jaws 4 to Jaws 3 and think that Superman Returns is better than Man Of Steel.
-
I think there are several sequels that you could make a case for being better than the original. Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Aliens, Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Fast & Furious 5 or 6, the list goes on.
Spiderman 2 better than Spiderman?
The Dark Knight better than Batman Begins?
I question weather or not we even saw the same movies.
There are certainly people who prefer the first film in each series, but the majority view seems to prefer the second. Especially with The Dark Knight. Not even sure why that would be a surprise, since it made all the money in the world, and was nominated for six Academy Awards, including a win for Heath Ledger.
-
I agree on Spiderman two (the one with Doc OC right?). That whole fight scene on top of the train is my favourite superhero fight scene ever!
And the Dark Knight contains what is one of the most dedicated acting performances I have ever seen. I thought Batman Begins was great but the Dark Knight is an amazing movie.
-
I watched all but the last 25 minutes of How to Train Your Dragon 2 last night... That sequel definitely worked.
-
Big Hero 6 was so good that I'm worried the second one will just be all action less heart.
In the same way that Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs 2 had none of the charisma of the first film.
-
I watched all but the last 25 minutes of How to Train Your Dragon 2 last night... That sequel definitely worked.
Yeah, that was pretty good.
-
Weekend At Bernie's 2 was pretty great said no one ever
-
You might be the first person I've ever seen say that Dark Knight and Spiderman 2 weren't better than their predecessors.
Seriously. I'm sure people will pop up now saying it because that shit just happens on the internet, but I've never seen anyone who thought those two movies weren't the best of their series far and away. :lol
Well, first of all I really liked the way they told the story in Batman Begins.
They took their time, and made it somewhat believable, but still had a decent amount of action.
I don't know if The Dark Knight would have been as big of a hit as it was if Heath Ledger hadn't died before it came out.
Plus there were all of those rumors saying that he died from a drug overdose, and the reason for that was because he was haunted by how dark the Joker character was, and that in turn very likely generated a lot of interest in the movie, which may have sold more tickets than it otherwise would have.
But the movie seemed a little rushed to me, as though they were more interested in showing the Joker blow things up and burn things than give any kind of background or motivation for his character.
Also I thought Two-Face was supposed to be a major villain in the Batman series, but he really didn't do all that much here, and then they killed him off.
As for Spiderman, I thought there was a lot to like about the first one, but a lot to hate about number two. Good name for it, actually.
To begin with: From what I remember in the comic books, "Dr. Ock" was an evil genius, but he was also a sociopathic murdering psychopath. Actually kind of scary. But I felt that this movie's version of him was a joke by comparison.
Also I hated the way Spiderman kept showing his (peter Parker) face to everyone. In the comic books he was always very careful about keeping his "secret identity" concealed. It was only much later in the various different series' that he VERY gradually started letting other people know who he was. Here he practically took out a front-page in the Daily Bugle with a headline screaming "I, Peter Parker, am SPIDER-MAN!" I mean that's what he might as well have done.
-
I don't know if The Dark Knight would have been as big of a hit as it was if Heath Ledger hadn't died before it came out.
Plus there were all of those rumors saying that he died from a drug overdose, and the reason for that was because he was haunted by how dark the Joker character was, and that in turn very likely generated a lot of interest in the movie, which may have sold more tickets than it otherwise would have.
I absolutely hate hearing this because I highly doubt it's the case. Considering how much buzz there was about his Joker performance in the trailers before he died to say the movie wasn't going to be as big because of it is, to me, a really unnecessary knock. Also it just happened to be a fantastic and well executed movie.
-
I'm sorry if what I said came across as being offensive.
I tried to choose my words very carefully.
I did say that I don't know, and that that MAY have been the case.
It's just an opinion.
-
I don't know if The Dark Knight would have been as big of a hit as it was if Heath Ledger hadn't died before it came out.
Plus there were all of those rumors saying that he died from a drug overdose, and the reason for that was because he was haunted by how dark the Joker character was, and that in turn very likely generated a lot of interest in the movie, which may have sold more tickets than it otherwise would have.
I absolutely hate hearing this because I highly doubt it's the case. Considering how much buzz there was about his Joker performance in the trailers before he died to say the movie wasn't going to be as big because of it is, to me, a really unnecessary knock. Also it just happened to be a fantastic and well executed movie.
Just to be fair, my mother and grandmother went and saw that movie in theaters just because they were Ledger fans. Neither one of them cares about comics or super heroes. They 100% went because he died. I suspect the new Fast and Furious movie is going to shatter the last two or three films, and it will probably be the most successful movie of that franchise to date. That will without question be because of Paul Walker's death. Same difference.
That being said, the joker was one of the most well done characters I've ever seen.
-
Spiderman 2 better than Spiderman?
Yes
The Dark Knight better than Batman Begins?
Yes
I question weather or not we even saw the same movies.
No shit.
But then.
Opinions...how... do THEY work?
-
By the way, Toy Story 2 is the greatest sequel of all time and my be the best film ever created.
:lol
-
Spider-Man 2 is up there among the best superhero movies for me, maybe even my personal favorite. The first one was really great too, but SM2 took everything to a higher level. I'd say the same goes for TDK. Batman Begins was great, but TDK was legendary.
-
I don't know if The Dark Knight would have been as big of a hit as it was if Heath Ledger hadn't died before it came out.
Plus there were all of those rumors saying that he died from a drug overdose, and the reason for that was because he was haunted by how dark the Joker character was, and that in turn very likely generated a lot of interest in the movie, which may have sold more tickets than it otherwise would have.
I absolutely hate hearing this because I highly doubt it's the case. Considering how much buzz there was about his Joker performance in the trailers before he died to say the movie wasn't going to be as big because of it is, to me, a really unnecessary knock. Also it just happened to be a fantastic and well executed movie.
Just to be fair, my mother and grandmother went and saw that movie in theaters just because they were Ledger fans. Neither one of them cares about comics or super heroes. They 100% went because he died. I suspect the new Fast and Furious movie is going to shatter the last two or three films, and it will probably be the most successful movie of that franchise to date. That will without question be because of Paul Walker's death. Same difference.
That being said, the joker was one of the most well done characters I've ever seen.
Agreed that something like that can cause more people to go and see something, probably increasing exposure - of course that can happen. But I don't believe it has a particularly big impact on how much people like it. If anything, more people going to see it who wouldn't normally like that sort of thing can mean more people who see it NOT liking it.